[discuss] Time to be more precise about Internet Governance, etc.

Tue Dec 31 10:36:03 UTC 2013

Jorge here quotes a fundamental technical governance priority: to 
provide a consensual multilingual technical, political and societal 
ontology of the internet. I remember a John Klensin's RFC on 
internationalization vocabulary? I understand that this is a taks 
Markus Kummer and Jefsey Morfin had discussed a long ago, that Markus 
Kummer has engaged with ISOC and Jefsey Morfin pursues through an 
Intlnet project?

At 06:38 31/12/2013, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>  If a word is understood in different ways by different people, 
>> IMHO it's a good idea not to use the word at all.
>Or make it very clear about the context and what you exactly mean by 
>using it, like the corporate governance of ICANN does not equal 
>Internet Governance.

At 08:22 31/12/2013, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> From the NYT: "Icann, a nonprofit that oversees the Internetâ€™s 
> basic functions, like the assignment of names to websites, was 
> established in 1998 by the United States government to create an 
> international forum for â€œgoverningâ€ the Internet.

Some candidate words I can list for them from this debate (in 
addition to the questions I asked in vain to Carlos Afonso) that 
would help me understanding what we are talking about:

- Internet (Nathalie)
- local (Vint Cerf)
- global (many)
- globalization (still many more)
- catenet (Louis Pouzin)
- presentation layer (Jefsey Morfin)
- fringe (Brian Carpenter)
- ICANN (Jorge)
- Academic (Milton)
- non politically impacting technical coordination (Parminder)
- multilateral (Dilma Rouseff)
- architectonics (Aristotle)
- net neutrality
- IPv6
- NAT (v4/v6)
- Government
- Civil Society
- Stakeholder
- atlarge
- domain name
- I* ---
- 1NET
- IETF/IAB/W3C/IEEE/ISOC/ICANN
- RIR
etc. etc.

I am afraid there are more than 7000 RFCs, out of which many are 
obsolete, some most probably contradicting, a few erroneous as the 
debates on IPv6 shows it. In additions there are the policy 
statements, best practices, information documents, proposed and 
actual standards, international norms, on-going WG works, 
manufacturers notices, how-to's, FAQ, wikis, information page, etc. etc.

As an analyst I evaluate as certain the intent of severals and 
probable the result of Sao Paulo of a trend toward non-american IETF 
and ICANN as singular or plural alternatives, forks and/or 
extensions. The main issue will be to talk of the same things, 
because (a) machines only know true and false, within the limits of 
Jon Postel robustness principle and (b) there might be a parallel and 
disruptive intense contention over the form and localization of the 
technical governance (by the ITU, Putin/Snowdown, or an adhoc world 
new organization).

At 08:22 31/12/2013, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>The United States continues to favor this group."
><http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/science/viewing-where-the-internet-goes.html>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/31/science/viewing-where-the-internet-goes.html

The response to Sao Paulo question is there: "Can the Internet be 
governed effectively?"

- Vint Cerf: "I'm deliberately arguing that new institutions are not 
necessary." (i.e. existing I*US institutions are enough).

- Bob Kahn. "No matter what you do, any [xxxx] in the world is going 
to have the ability to set its own rules internally. It's not a 
question of technical issues, It's just with us." (i.e. we are better 
off in working out a workable governance of governances).

MG

MG  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131231/6ef2e2f7/attachment.html>